FYI under layers in the iD editor, you can turn on the "MassGIS L3 Parcels" overlay...it's the last one. This is very helpful to show where the property boundaries are. It's just an image so if you need to query to get detailed information on ownership, you can use the MassGIS parcel viewer:
https://massgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=47689963e7bb4007961676ad9fc56ae9

Thanks for the quick response. No biggie. I just updated that track per your note. FYI, changing here will probably NOT update Google Maps' routing feature. But glad to have the added detail in OSM. Thanks.

Hello. You applied the "barrier=boulders" tag to the whole way and removed "highway=track". The interpretation of this would be the whole way is a long line of boulders. I suspect you meant to indicate that there are boulders at the beginning and/or end of the track to block vehicle access? If so, then the barrier tag would be just applied to the node at the beginning and/or end. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.

Hello. It's been a minute but do you know why you tagged this way as covered?
osm.org/way/181134838

I presume a mistake? Thanks.

Hello. I noticed you added natural=wood back to these large properties. This is not correct as large parts of the property are not covered in trees. If one was to add inners of the ponds, etc on this relation, then that would make the parcel definition multipolygon not correct because it would cut out areas that are part of the property.

If you wish to do land cover mapping then the best practice is to create a separate multipolygon to define this...and that can have cut-outs for the ponds and other features that are not natural=wood.

Ideally, OSM would have multiple layers built in to make this easier: one for cadastre/properties, one for landcover, etc. But alas it's just one big layer. This best practice of separate multipolygons help keeps things more correct.

I don't do much woods land cover mapping anymore myself. I found myself wanting to do it mostly to make the parcel green on the OSM standard render.

I'd like to switch it back to remove as it is more correct but will wait for your additional thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

Hello. Really great to see someone from The Trustees here on OSM mapping! I'm a big fan of your organization.

I was just recently mapping in this area a week or two ago and meticulously aligned the whole TTOR parcel to the MassGIS L3 Tax Parcel map. I noticed you moved this boundary slightly away. Was this intentional? Do you know if the MassGIS data is wrong (sometimes it is)? Or were you hoping to create a visual buffer to the private land?

I also noticed you added an additional mini-triangle for the Mill Farm private CR. This is duplicative data as there is already a way for the whole parcel.

Additionally, I noticed you (accidentally?) connected a wetland way point to a cadastre way. Please be careful.

I appreciate this is a very contentious area, and you are dealing with trespassers. But some of your changes do not conform to OSM mapping norms.

This private CR should probably never have been added to OSM in the first place. There was a MassGIS OpenSpace layer a decade ago that brought them in. I've spent a lot of time this past year cleaning this data up throughout the state. I've worked on many TTOR properties lately.

If you'd like to collaborate further, please send me a message. I have a passion to make it easier for people to find where they can get outside...and also want to make sure they know where they can NOT go too.

Thanks.

Sounds good.

FYI: there is a recently started initiative to evolve trail mapping in OSM.
osm.wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

Unfortunately now, everything from an informal bushwhack to the Pacific Crest Trail gets rendered on most maps in the same way. Hopefully, the results of this group will be more nuanced tagging. ...and hopefully the major mapping products will change their renderings accordingly to make their maps more useful and communicative.

Happy mapping...

Please listen to this presentation from a Canyonlands ranger and reconsider if everything needs to become a "trail" in OSM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXXGkBVJK-o&t=19s

I can not see much evidence on imagery. I personally do not add trails that I can't see on imagery and/or haven't hiked myself firsthand and/or haven't seen on an official map from the land manager.

Hello. Not seeing the toilets on the ground the toilets you have marked in front of the pump house. Was there a portable toilet here before? Or is this in the wrong location? Thanks.

Thanks for the catch. An inadvertent change. Fixed. Unfortunately, there are a lot of parcels with these types of tags from a MassGIS import a decade ago. Have been slowly cleaning it up.

osm.wiki/MassGIS_Import_Tag_Cleanup_2013

Hello. I saw you requested a review. Looks fine to me!

BTW, there is an active local mapping community on Slack if you care to join in. Happy mapping! https://slack.openstreetmap.us/
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114489692

...furthermore, some of the trail segments you deleted are clearly on town-owned land. I look forward to hearing a response.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114502972

I recommend putting notes on the ways that are aligned to the stone walls. If L3 parcels is wrong, some future well-intentioned mapper will likely repeat. I think most people don't bother to check the history.

I'm curious: how do you know the L3 is wrong (if it is) and the stone wall is the official boundary? Is it on the parcel map? Thanks.

Hello. I realize this is an old changest but still wanted to reach out. I notice you changed "leisure=nature_reserve" to landuse=recreation_ground". Per the wiki, heavily wooded areas are generally not recreation_ground. They usually have playing fields, etc.

In my experience mapping in MA, ~urban "recreation_ground" are being retagged with just park. And conservation properties almost always get nature_reserve unless it's a manicured park.

osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Drecreation_ground

osm.wiki/United_States/Public_lands

osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Park_boundary

I'm curious about your thoughts on this. Happy mapping!

Hello. This changeset covers a very large geographical area and makes it difficult to provide feedback if there is a disagreement. Please endeavor to create smaller changesets in the future. Thanks.

opps. Hit enter too quick.

...it's hard enough getting agreement on these things locally. You should see some of the discussions with mappers globally! I'm amazed OSM has gotten as far as it has.

Anyways, thanks for the acquiescence. I do feel "track" is more consistent with other similar wide paths regionally so changed it.

For me: "wide enough for 4WD truck" and "purposefully intended vehicle access from regular roads (via those swing gates)" are the two qualifying criteria consistent with the wiki.

BTW, I'm active on the OSM Slack instance. Always happy to meet and collaborate with other local mappers...especially those interested in adding details to our public lands. Cheers.

https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Thanks for the response.

Yeah, if you get into OSM more, you'll be amazed at the level of back-and-forth there are on these types of things. It's hard e

There exist default access restrictions:
osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_States_of_America

The wiki is sometimes a bit of a hot mess. IMHO, in the area you'll generally find:

"hiking" trails, like those at Walden get a "highway=path". If bicycles are not allowed, then a "bicycle=no" is added. For extra credit you could add a "horse=no" too but I don't see too many people trying to ride horses there. A "foot=yes" is redundant.

I think what you did isn't "wrong" per se, it's just stylistically inconsistent with the tagging norms in the region. Usually, an "access=no" is used in the relatively rare cases where the general public is not allowed on a "path". Furthermore, the OSM Carto render (default OSM map) and other popular maps like AllTrails/Gaia/etc render the line differently than the other paths right next to it with "access=no". Note that you did not add an "access=no" to this adjoining way and it looks different on the map:
osm.org/way/55200483

Thanks.

BTW, I'm active on the OSM Slack. https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ Always happy to meet and collaborate with other local mappers, especially those interested in adding details to our public lands.

Hello. What was the reason for tagging "access=no" on some of the trails near Goose Pond? They appear as open trails on the DCR map. Was this done by mistake? Seems like you were trying to indicate bicycles are not allowed. But an "access=no" means no one is allowed on these trails. Was this your intention? Thanks.

Hello. Looks like you're trying to indicate that trail access from a point onwards will change? Thanks for updating the map. However, I don't think this is the best way to indicate this change. Your note will not render with the standard map.

You could break the trail here and change the segment to "access=private" or whatever is appropriate. I'm not directly familiar with this area.

Another way to add a note like this is on the main website. You can drop a general note to fix up later...or for someone else to update.

osm.wiki/Notes

I'm active on the OSM Slack if you wanted to chat further. Happy mapping...